Jump to content


Banned Users
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Iving

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you but it's clear from the OP that I want to hear from people who *do* hear a difference. We have already put the cpu/horsepower issue to bed on your behalf. It is moot. We don't need further evidence. May I re-iterate - considerations such as these are ancillary at best. I am interested in Subjective accounts of SQ by compression level and arguments or justifications relating to why a given setting may be *better* - not just different.
  2. Thank you but it's clear from the OP that I want to hear from people who *do* hear a difference. HDD space is a non-issue for me - I understand it is for you (and others). I am interested in SQ only. The OP assumes flac is lossless explicitly. You are saying that the compression level can be changed by conversion and without loss. OK. May I re-iterate - considerations such as these are ancillary at best. I am interested in Subjective accounts of SQ by compression level and arguments or justifications relating to why a given setting may be *better* - not just different.
  3. If I understand you, what you are saying is broadly in line with Maor_avni (supra). May I re-iterate - considerations such as these are ancillary at best. I am interested in Subjective accounts of SQ by compression level and arguments or justifications relating to why a given setting may be *better* - not just different.
  4. 3-6 leaves 0-2 (low compression) and 7-8 (high compression) outside its range. It's usually assumed that more [cpu] "horsepower" is required for decoding of higher compression levels. As I posted above, Maor_avni at roonlabs says, "I would even suggest that larger files make the decoder work harder, since it has to pull more bytes from the stream." I find this beguiling as explained. So the horsepower issue may be somewhat moot for "any compression". Otherwise it's not clear what you mean by "many issues". May I re-iterate - considerations such as these are ancillary at best. I am interested in Subjective accounts of SQ by compression level and arguments or justifications relating to why a given setting may be *better* - not just different.
  5. This has nothing to do with forgetting new rules. The OP is clear that this sort of remark or contribution is excluded/unwanted/irrelevant. It's a stand alone unambiguous mischief case.
  6. That is such a deliberate and flagrant breach of the OP that you deserve censure @The Computer Audiophile.
  7. Beguiling post here from Maor_avni: https://community.roonlabs.com/t/effect-of-flac-compression-on-sq/8843/5 This argument, as I read/understand it, is that there is *not* a (positive) correlation (of sorts) between compression level and cpu work such that 8 requires most cpu work and 0 least (leaving aside uncompressed for the moment). All flac compression levels require the "same" cpu work. If this were true, and we were looking only to cpu work vs. I/O load trade-off as explanation, then the choice becomes merely uncompressed vs. "any compressed". In which case - if I am hearing a difference between 6 and 8 - this poster would say (according to the caveat later in the post) it is because larger files require *more* decoding - in which case I'd be better off with 8 rather than 6 assuming I choose "any compressed". Now my confirmation bias is cruising towards preferring the "smoother" sound to which I am accustomed with flac 8 - knowing that I shan't need to embark on a re-rip project to boot.
  8. Whilst this may seem a hackneyed topic at first glance, I have done a lot of "desktop research" in the past 24-48 hrs, and not found convincing discussion here on AS or elsewhere that maps directly to my central concern. I hope that folks with *relevant first hand experience* can chime in to flavour my reflections on my own observations. I need to make a decision on how to proceed with ripping CDs from here, and want to optimise the odds that I'll be happy with what I'm doing down the line. The short version: A. Can flac compression levels - from uncompressed thru 0 thru 8 - be discerned wrt SQ? B. Any differences will be subtle and, so, how can we be confident that a given setting is *better* than another - and not just different. Assumptions/preliminaries: - local playback of flac [in my case Optane AIC on W10 PC > DVS ASIO > eR > RedNet D16 AES > DAC]; - flac is lossless; - uncompressed is not the same as 0 which is in fact compressed (at a lower level than 8); - WAV irrelevant (except by extrapolation of any explanatory argument) as tagging required; - re possible explanations: (i) compression is a 2-edged sword: on the one hand, decoding gives the CPU more work to do - on the other hand, larger files have repercussions for I/O and storage drive "work"; (ii) there could be other explanations including brain trickery; (iii) it's *not* explanations that matter so much as subjective experiences and SQ justifications - these define the scope of Topic. - so we are not interested in double blind testing or anything like that. My prelim. dilemma ... Only because I bought a new ripping PC [W7 > W10], I reviewed EAC settings trying compression level 6 instead of 8. I re-ripped a couple of CDs for unrelated reasons: 1. Lana Del Rey NFR (bought on a whim after reading rave here) as I thought I could hear mild clicks/pops on Track 1 e.g. at 33/34 secs [I am still wondering about the master - there are loads of reports about noisy vinyl btw]; and, 2. DSOM 30th Anniv. to listen in company, and I just wondered whether a different CD ripping drive could make a difference. So please NB: for the new rips I am using an old but little-used 2009 or something labelflash installed as an internal SATA drive in the new computer, whereas my W7 machine had a reliable and still working Samsung CD/DVD drive of similar vintage. The labelflash has a different offset c. +668 vs. the Samsung +6. I wanted to try the labelflash because it has far less use/wear and sounded mechanically smoother and less dB noisy = shake rattle and roll. Here's the rub - I was surprised to find myself thinking I could hear differences between corresponding tracks from the respective rips - some more than others. I confirm the track-wise MD5s are identical. Compression level 6 sounded brighter or airier / 8 sounded softer - maybe - I'm not being dogmatic about it. Yes - it could be the drive or even the PC/hardware - but I'm assuming that flac compression levels are a more plausible attribution than hardware. Anyway I shall control this "nuisance" by and by see below. I don't know yet which of 6 and 8 I prefer - I am confident I don't have an expectation bias that one is better than the other. I found striking an old post by @sandyk here: I say again for emphasis - I do not know which of 6 and 8 is *better* SQ-wise. I have spent so long taming digititis I'm very wary of interpreting HF/detail as better SQ. It is more often associated with electrical noise as far as I am concerned. This is why I'm interested not just in "I heard a difference" but in its qualitative nature and why and how one instance might be considered *better* SQ than another. [You may say, "If you're not sure which is better why are you bothered". But come on - if there is a difference, it follows that one is better than the other and I just don't know which yet until I am attuned (or have investigated further or more systematically). Please also let it go on me trying to pursue this - it's an audiophile Forum 🙂] Just to underline - I'm interested in reading subjective experiences and how they are understood wrt SQ. I'm interested in aetiological explanations but only by way of conjecture. I want to find other people's experiences compelling (or not, admittedly!) - not their mission to prove that anything is or isn't possible. My next step towards trying to help myself is to rip some chosen material at: - uncompressed in dBpoweramp - uncompressed in EAC - 0 in EAC (since I'll stick with EAC unless a reason to change) - 6 in EAC - 8 in EAC and see what I think I can hear, contemplating both reliability of my ears and which if any settings I really honestly prefer. As this ripping will all be done on one PC [note: my audiophile listening PC is not the ripping PC], and with one ripping drive, the only difference between "conditions" will be compression level (and rip software for uncompressed only). This might take a little time. I'll report back if there's any interest. I'm aware that flac uncompressed - should that be a preferred direction - may be tricky in EAC and easier in dBpoweramp. I'm open-minded as I'm not looking to re-create CDs. tyvm in advance for any constructive contributions.
  9. Suppose I should add/explain - my cables are heat-moulded to fit. Even if the eR were not anchored there would be no/negligible strain on it.
  10. Although not strictly a weight, my solution is evident in the following posts. Probably my whole system by some standards is over-engineered; nevertheless, there is zero strain/torque on the eR notwithstanding very stiff/heavy cables - and my heatsink was carefully chosen and fitted over an exactly-cut thermal pad.
  11. 1 egg can not be more than 100% - but only of one egg. I said something different entirely - that 3 eggs are 150% of 2 eggs. Yes you can have 100% as an absolute reference. I cannot eat more than 100% of my wife's breakfast provided you understand that 2 eggs = 100% of her breakfast and I will not cook her "seconds". Many posters here are emphasising that percentages - in mathematical terms - are ratios. That is also correct. You can have any ratios you like unless they are preposterous. It does all boil down to whether you think the ad intended to mislead rather than cajole or persuade. As an ad, is it any more deceptive than the general run of ads we condone in our capitalist affairs. Not really imo. Also imho - you'd have to be an audiophile to be interested in the ad in the first place ... anybody who reads the ad as meaning that silver can conduct >100% of possible conductivity deserves to have their money taken off them. So all in all - not too much to start a thread about. [Let alone "many of you are ridiculous" or whatever that remark was.]
  12. I can. When I cook our breakfast in the morning, I fry 2 eggs for my wife and 3 for me. I get 150% of what she does. Or a 150% share. Isn't it more common to put it like that than 3/2. Or that she gets 1/3 of a box of half-a-dozen and I get 1/2. I'm all for no BS. Someone made the point that BJC have gone very jazzy with some products. I found from first hand experience that AQ Cinnamons sound better than several others at or below the price point, including BJC. My system is good/balanced right now, but if I had to upgrade something it would be the RJ/E, and I would go for silver. I'd DIY because of the whacky prices for manufacturers' silver-based ethernet cables. Can be 2-3000% or more of a basic copper BJC. OK that last % example was more for effect (vs. 20-30 times). Not exactly wrong or deceitful tho'.
  13. Just a few 2c thoughts. I guess my focus is on key reference terms and their meaning/fulness. I am a Computer Audiophile fantasising - as I read the conversation so far - that I had an Extreme and, so, I trust my reflections are on topic. Prequel: Hats off to Emile for pioneering the design with all that R&D - and also @ray-dude for these classy, informative and entertaining write-ups. I would relish trialing the Extreme in lieu of the PC in my system [see signature line] - in which case it would have no "input" - and its output would be ethernet, not USB. Whilst I shouldn't be at all surprised to hear stellar performance, of course the Extreme wasn't designed with me in mind. I see it as primarily a "streamer" - by which I mean a device whose primary function is to relay online music directly or indirectly to a DAC. With all that processing power, I presume also that it is intended for those with up-sampling in mind - and those who might be running several software programmes for music transmission simultaneously. My drift is that the Extreme matches a particular use/mindset - whereas Hi-Fi is a pursuit which quite rightly engages diverse nags on many courses. I'm not looking to open a can of worms about what happens to digits on the way from a remote server - but would nevertheless argue that the "Source" in my case begins on a local drive. Actually CD Rips on another PC copied via fb2k filters prn to the Optane AIC in my PC - which I call a PC - but which I am happy to regard as a server - since it serves local music to a DAC via a RedNet interface. I would never refer to either my PC or the RedNet D16 AES as an endpoint. I am less advertising my own approach than musing on what kind of local server the Extreme would be. More to the point - if it had been designed as a local server - how different would it be and in what respects? Come to that - if it is connected offline directly to a DAC, is it then an endpoint rather than a server? Congrats @austinpopagain on another first class review. I am not addressing whether an eR should precede/make any difference in front of an Extreme. Just confirming that in an offline system, my eR makes a very worthwhile difference between PC and RedNet interface: I suppose one could say between server and endpoint. But i do see "endpoint" loaded with connotations and associations - in particular NAS and streaming (online music) - neither of which apply in my case. If the Extreme were to replace the PC in my system - as a server without an endpoint I would say - all of these refinements would benefit me provided that everything related to network optimisation was geared to Dante downstream of the PC and prior to the DAC. Forgive me. I don't get this. To me the Extreme is a "streamer". I am not trying to be awkward! If it were designed as an offline server, its very sophisticated design could be different in significant respects. OK - so regards terminology things could get very confusing! The only point I really want to make is that mindsets and precedents can be hindrances as much as platforms useful for progressing and taking things forward. To me it is moot yet highly relevant whether the Extreme - designed as a streamer - is also such an all-rounder that I could conceive of it as a worthwhile replacement for my PC which if inclined you could also call a server. btw I control my PC via Remote Desktop from a tablet at the listening position. I still regard that as offline since the network's only function pre my PC is to receive control instructions for fb2k on the host PC. tbh I find it gobsmacking that after all that has been said over the years about NAS and endpoints and NUCs and everything else that an optimal/common arrangement is Extreme connected directly to a DAC via USB. I am deeply appreciative of the blogging shared by @Nenon and @StreamFidelity. Even if their carefully thought out PC/servers are contrived with uses at variance to mine, I can harvest what I can see as useful in imagining my next server. [Don't tell the wife - and anyway it's OK I am very happy for the time being with what I've got.] Summary: Whilst it may be a great all-rounder, to my eyes and mind the Extreme's design matches a particular system-use-mindset. In this respect it is off-the-peg rather than bespoke. Whilst I am perfectly OK with busy folks purchasing the blood, sweat and tears expended by others, from another standpoint there's nothing like building your own castle. I realise that with my offline/ethernet based system I am in a minority here at AS - the best Hi-Fi Forum on the www by a very long chalk.
  14. If we're waiting for markdowns, perhaps the first "preloved" ad will come much sooner than the first holiday sale.
  • Create New...